ArticleJournal of neuroscience research2016
Transparent reporting for reproducible science.
Article in Journal of neuroscience research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disorders.Molecular autism · 2025Article
- Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- In vitro toxicity model: Upgrades to bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2020Review
- Review
- Subject-specific responses to an adaptive ankle prosthesis during incline walking.Journal of biomechanics · 2019Article
- Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.Journal of neuroscience research · 2019Article
- Diabetes and Behavior in the 21st Century: Things That Make You Go "Hmmm . . . ".Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2019Article
- Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2019Article
- Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.Brain and behavior · 2019Article
- Data visualization, bar naked: A free tool for creating interactive graphics.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2017Article
- Article
- Promoting and supporting credibility in neuroscience.Brain and neuroscience advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.